Tag Archives: E-Cigarette Regulations in the UK

Across the pond, in the UK, a First World nation full of educated, intelligent thinking people, with a democratic government, excellent physicians with a fully-functional healthcare system, and a high level of independent research done through their scientific endeavors as well as through their many highly-esteemed universities, they have been able to see through the spin, and understand the enormous potential of electronic cigarettes in regards to the betterment of their public. With 3 million people as smokers, they see the promise an alternative such as vapor devices presents. Instead of fighting over trivial suspicions, they are focusing on facts, and focusing on how many lives can be saved by offering vapor devices as legit cessation options.

In the US, however, we find a new reason to vilify e-cigarettes every week, and often base these suspicions on the conclusions of sporadic studies, often done with biased data, or select data from perfectly positioned groups that will enable the outcomes to sway in their predetermined directions.

According to vapor products advocate, David Sweanor (adjunct professor of law at the University of Ottowa as well as a special lecturer for the division of epidemiology and public health at the University of Nottingham): “There’s a very strong abstinence-only part of what’s going on in the anti-smoking movement. I think it’s one of the most counter-productive things that we’ve ever seen.” Having spent a huge amount of his career over the past 30 years dedicated to fighting the war on tobacco, Sweanor is more than capable of offering some insight to a muddled situation that could really use some common sense.

This week, reports of a study done the journal the Lancet Respiratory Medicine, claimed that according to their data, e-cigarettes do not help smokers quit smoking. Despite having been published by a legitimate medical journal, the study was loaded with inaccuracies, and has been labeled both “grossly misleading,” by Peter Hajek, currently the Director of the Tobacco Dependence Research Unit of Queen Mary University of London, and “not scientific” by Deputy Director of the UK Centre for Tobacco & Alcohol Studies, Ann McNeill, who also serves as a professor at King’s College London.

It’s rather interesting, though heavily confounding on why electronic cigarettes are being so vilified in the media. Sure, we could go all “conspiracy theory” on you as to why this could be part of some big, deep, underlying scheme, but that’s really not necessary. There’s enough going on at the surface to ponder, and it really is perplexing every way it’s examined. We’re certain, despite the current state of affairs, that the future holds much promise, but in the meantime, it’s a crazy path the industry is navigating!

The United Kingdom’s regulator for medicinal items, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has officially classified electronic cigarettes as medical devices. This is the step taken in an effort to what may become the official marketing of electronic cigarette devices as cessation devices. This is very big news for the vapor products industry, and while it is not fully relevant to the US market, it is a major step for the industry as a whole, and it sets an incredible example the US needs to take note of.

Prior to this landmark decision on the part of MHRA, vapor products were not permitted to be recommended by general practitioners as they were not considered licensed products. Because of this monumental decision, vapor products will now be able to truly compete with established cessation methods in the UK, such as nicotine gums and nicotine patches, and physicians as well as other healthcare providers will be able to recommend them for usage.

This is an excellent example being demonstrated as a model for nations such as the US, whose own policies and politics regarding e-cigarettes are not yet established. Across the pond, we are currently awaiting the FDA to make a final decision on the ability of today’s e-cigarettes to even continue being sold.

The health agencies in the UK have been staunch and stubborn in regards to their opinions of e-cigarettes, and they have seen the potential they hold for quite some time now. Last year, Public Health England’s report on e-cigarette use, and their independent findings that vapor cigarettes are 95% healthier than traditional tobacco cigarettes made worldwide headlines, having come from a legitimate source making such a bold claim. The UK has been blatantly vocal about the promise these products hold for people looking to quit smoking, and with 20% of the British adult population as smokers, they are truly committed to their betterment and health.

We applaud the UK on their decision, which we know was based on a great amount of research, studies, and common sense. We are excited to see where the market is headed, and look forward to what these revolutionary products are going to do for the public health sector in the near future.

Not enough research to deem electronic cigarettes a worthy option for smokers looking for an alternative? Wrong, according to Public Health England.

While the debate rages on, between controversy and approval for e-cigarettes, Public Health England recently made a bold announcement in the direction of positivity for electronic cigarettes. Acknowledging the fact that safety and purity regulation is a necessity, they also acknowledged the many positives these products hold, and that they have the potential to be a major source of assistance to those looking to quit smoking.

The stance cited a variety of research, publicly putting an end to the incessant cry of “not enough research or scientific data,” and zeroed in on the common sense ideal that without tobacco, the concept of smoking takes on an entirely different face. All of the information released by Public Health England was part of their Evidence-Based Review, and it examined a large collection of data and studies, as well as consumer information to reach their conclusions. This was done over an extended period of time, with a great amount of consideration on previous research, and was aimed to be conducted in a most unbiased manner.

Despite e-cigarettes not being marketed as such, the research found that electronic cigarettes are the number one choice among smokers as a cessation device. While these products are prohibited from being marketed in such a way, this is how users are utilizing them, and contrary to what major governmental agencies (in the USA, at least) may have to say about the regulatory semantics, smokers are proving to have very successful results. As the foreword of the Public Health England’s Evidence-Based Review states: “The role and impact of electronic cigarettes has been one of the great debates in public health in recent years and we commissioned this independent review of the latest evidence to ensure that practitioners, policy makers and, most importantly of all, the public have the best evidence available.” There was no political manipulation or hidden agenda behind this research. It’s about being upfront, honest, and giving the real deal statistics to those who need them. Whether or not the US follows suit, and begins regulating on such a common-sense, realistic manner will be seen in time; it the meantime, enormous kudos to Public Health England for being blunt where it matters, and making it clear that e-cigarettes are not the bad guy!

Electronic cigarettes are used worldwide, and restrictions vary from place to place. This week brought big news coming from the United Kingdom this week on the subject of e-cigarette advertising laws.

In the UK, e-cigs are now being featured in television ads. While this may not seem like a big deal, as electronic cigarette advertisements have been on TV for a few years, actually showing devices in use was banned until a recent change in laws was enforced on Monday.

The UK’s Committee of Advertising Practice ruled in favor of electronic cigarette advertising as long as advertisements adhered to strict codes that tobacco not be shown “in a positive light.” This is a perfect compromise for the e-cigarette industry, as electronic cigarettes do not contain, support, or advertise tobacco in any manner.

Here are some of the explicit guidelines the Committee of Advertising Practice has requested:

They must not be “likely to appeal particularly to people under 18, especially by reflecting or being associated with youth culture.”

They must not encourage non-smokers to use e-cigarettes.They must make no claims that e-cigarettes are “safer” or “healthier” than smoking tobacco.

They must not make any health claims without approval from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

Consumers as well as those involved in the e-cigarette industry in the UK are quite pleased with this turnout. Those involved with the industry are excited about the change in laws, and feel very much that this is a small victory, as e-cigarettes become increasingly mainstream, common items.

This exciting e-cigarette news is precisely an example of the sort of common sense regulations that are both intelligent, and enable electronic cigarettes to receive the type of attention they deserve. Considering that they are products made to be used as alternatives to traditional cigarettes, it is a great step in the right direction.

YOU MUST BE OVER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS TO BUY AND OR USE ANY INTERNATIONAL VAPOR GROUP ("IVG") PRODUCT.

Nicotine is a highly addictive substance derived from the tobacco plant. Our products do not treat, diagnose, or cure any disease, physical ailment, or condition. If you are allergic to nicotine or any combination of inhalants, if you are pregnant or breast-feeding, or if you have a heart-condition, diabetes, high blood pressure or asthma, consult your physician before using IVG nicotine products. Just like traditional tobacco cigarettes, IVG Electronic Cigarettes are not approved by the American FDA.

CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 65 Warning: These products contains nicotine, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.

*This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.